Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 19 (PAT)

Ravaneshwar Kishore Narain v. Union of India

1992-01-23

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body1992
JUDGMENT Radda Mohan Prasad, J. In this application the petitioner. who is the son of Late Justice Jugal Kishore Narain, has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner the life time arrear family pension of his mother at revised rate and to furnish a copy of the detailed account in respect of the same. 2. The petitioner's father, who was a member of the Superior Judicial Service, was appointed as a Judge of the Court (Patna High Court) where he continued from 1.1.1948 to 31.12.1954 when he superannuated on completion of 60 years of age. As it appears from the writ petition, the petitioner's father died on 21.12.1969 leaving behind his widow, besides the petitioner as his legal heir. After the decision of the Supreme Court, by its order dated 24.4.1984 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9616 of 1983, the petitioner's mother applied for grant of family pension to her which, according to the petitioner, remained pending till she died on 1.11.1984. However, after the death of the mother of the petitioner, the respondents allowed the payment of life time arrear family pension of his deceased mother and respondent no. 2, vide his letter No. 16/4/1985-Jus. dated 20.1.1986, communicated to respondent no. 3 the Presidential Sanction for the said payment at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month for the period 1.10.1974 to 1.11.1984. Accordingly, respondent no. 4 paid a sum of Rs. 29,947/- to the petitioner on 13.4.1988. In paragraph 14 of the writ petition the petitioner has raised a grievance that from 22.9.1977 the amount of family pension of High Court Judges has been raised from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 250/- per month, which ought to have been the basis for calculating the arrear family pension. Another grievance of the petitioner is that under Rule 54 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Pension Rules') the amount of family pension of those having last drawn more than Rs. 3.000/- as basic pay would be 15% of the same subject to a minimum of Rs. 600/-. Besides these two grievances, the petitioner raised another grievance in the writ petition that he was entitled for arrear family pension of his mother on the basis of the calculation according to the revised salary of High Court Judges after 54th amendment of the Constitution of India. 600/-. Besides these two grievances, the petitioner raised another grievance in the writ petition that he was entitled for arrear family pension of his mother on the basis of the calculation according to the revised salary of High Court Judges after 54th amendment of the Constitution of India. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, as referred to in the letter of the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India No. 31/7/88 Jus. dated 26.8.1988, produced by the learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3, Mr. Jha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has fairly not pressed the third grievance. 3. A counter affidavit as well as a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3. In paragraph 8 of the said counter affidavit it has been stated that the calculation of the life time arrears of family pension of the mother of the petitioner has been done at the rate applicable at the relevant time. However, in paragraph 2 of the supplementary counter affidavit it has been stated that the family pension of the mother of the petitioner was revised and fixed at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month from 22.9.1977 to 1.11.1984, vide authority letter No. Pen-2-96-97 dated 19.1.1990 because she died on 1.11.1984. 4. Neither detail accounting has been furnished nor the relevant rule has been brought to my notice which entitled the petitioner to claim the amount of arrear family pension on the basis of 15% of basic pay subject to 8 minimum of Rs. 600/- in a case like the present one where the retiring Judge was in service from 1.1.1948 to 31.12.1954. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has relief on Rule 54 (1) (a) of the Pension Rules which provides as follows :- "54 (1) The provisions of the rule shall apply.-(a) to a Government servant entering service in a pension-able establishment on or after the 1st January, 1964; and..." Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the provisions contained in Rule 54 of the Pension Rules, which is also applicable in the case of the High Court Judges, shall only apply to those who entered service on or after 1st January, 1964. Thus, according to him, in view of the facts of the present case, Rule 54 (2) of the Pension Rules relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is of no avail. 5. However, in the absence of detailed account which neither of the parties have furnished it is difficult to give any positive relief to the petitioner in this case, but it will be open to the petitioner to raise the grievance again with the authorities concerned, if not already redressed for the payment of arrear family pension of his mother, whereafter the authorities will pass necessary orders in accordance with law within a period of two months of the raising of the grievance. I make it clear that if an adverse order is passed by the authorities concerned, then the reasons for the same should be assigned. In any case, the payment of arrear family pension, according to the revised fixation, as stated in paragraph 2 of the supplementary counter affidavit, to the petitioner, if not already made, should be paid forthwith to him. 6. With this observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of but without costs.